Those pictures may have been created by artists who were not well informed about church history, but the fact is those pictures have been published by the church repeatedly in every official publication they issue. If the church knew the pictures were not showing the whole story, why did they not commission one to use instead that was accurate? The church repeatedly placed its official stamp of approval on those pictures by publishing them. They did this for the simple reason that the pictures conveyed the officially sanctioned story about how Joseph translated. The tactic they are using of trying to deflect blame away from the so-called prophets, seers and revelators for the misleading pictures by blaming the artists is the same used a few years ago to pretend that it was never official doctrine that the American Indians were the Lamanites by claiming that this was just the belief of some unnamed members. Who just happened to include Joseph Smith and all of his successors as church president, but I digress.

The one common thread that runs through all of this is that the leadership will say whatever and do whatever is necessary to achieve two goals: protect the institutional church and the leadership's position of absolute power in it. Anything and everything can be tossed out if it furthers those goals. Any lie or half truth can be justified if it furthers those goals.

They never believed that it would reach a point where some of the true church history would have to be divulged in order to retard massive membership resignations.

"They never believed that it would reach a point where some of the true church history would have to be divulged in order to retard massive membership resignations."

Never go full retard!!!

Hey Canuck Guy: What part of Canada are you in?

I'm in Ottawa.

I'm in Ottawa from time to time (live in a town south of you). Maybe we should do a meet-up? Any others in the region?

They are being forced to acknowledge many things lately. They claim publicly all this is coming out because--being the good people they are--they just want to provide more transparency. That's not true.

They are publishing things like the rock story and the "papers" because pesky little facts are emerging on the Internet and they know how absolutely insane it portrays Mormon doctrine and history.

You are absolutely right, Canuck Guy: They gave tacit endorsement to that imagery because they wanted to appear as "normal" as possible. Those pictures could not have appeared in LDS church publications, in lesson manuals, in missionary books, on meetinghouse walls, and in ward library "picture kits" unless the right people in the right positions had endorsed them. But now that it is commonly known that Joseph Smith read words off a rock in a hat, they have to put the best face they can on this ugly reality of Smith's mysticism.

And if they truly wanted to provide more "transparency," they would make that rock available for scientific inspection. But they won't, of course, because what scientists would report is it's a rock. A plain old rock.

There is a macabre pleasure in watching them twist and churn as they face the unpleasantness of the truth coming to light.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2015 10:20AM by left4good.

left4good Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They are being forced to acknowledge many things
> lately. They claim publicly all this is coming
> out because--being the good people they are--they
> just want to provide more transparency. That's
> not true.
>
> They are publishing things like the rock story and
> the "papers" because pesky little facts are
> emerging on the Internet and they know how
> absolutely insane it portrays Mormon doctrine and
> history.

They are telling the truth just like Bill Clinton told the
truth about Monica Lewinsky--because they had no other choice.

"The church repeatedly placed its official stamp of approval on those pictures by publishing them. They did this for the simple reason that the pictures conveyed the officially sanctioned story about how Joseph translated."

Exactly. Joseph Smith wrote his "official history" in 1838, in which he told the "two stones in silver bows, fastened to a breastplate" version of the BOM's production. He concocted that version as an attempt to quash the increasing published reports of his 1820's peep-stone/treasure-hunting past (such as those published in Eber Howe's 1834 "Mormonism Unvailed" as well as numerous newspaper articles from 1830 onwards.)

Because Smith's 1838 version became the official version---and it was canonized in 1880 in the PGP---church leaders and apologists have necessarily downplayed or denied all of the accounts of the seer stone-in-the-hat version until the last couple of years (except for isolated mentions such as Russell Nelson's 1998 remarks.) The church is only just now conceding to the seer-stone-in-the-hat version because they can no longer deny it and maintain any credibility in telling their own church's history.

I know that Mopologists fight tooth and nail against that idea (really, what else can they do? they're Mopologists), but I hold the Mormon church accountable for every image they put in their publications. They're the ones that claim revelation for all important decisions the church makes. So, since "a picture is worth a thousand words," they're responsibility for doctrinal accuracy is multiplied in the illustrations.

That's why I absolutely LOVE the BoM paintings by Friberg--I used to like them as a TBM, but now I relish them. What do they say about BoM teachings? Horses, steel ... and NO garments! (Suck on that, DCP!)

https://www.google.com/search?q=friberg+book+of+mormon+paintings&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=643&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMI2suk-oOdxwIVzJyICh3bUAP7

I hold them responsible too!

One Sunday I was asked to fill in at the library because one of the assistants was out that day. After the hustle-bustle of checking out lesson materials for primary and ss teachers; I began to look thru drawers and cubbies. I found a large cache of illustrated posters. They were old, but still in good condition. The sister in charge finished her gossiping to notice that I had them sprawled all over the counters. "Good Heavens, put all those away at once. We're not supposed to use those anymore. They are no longer approved by the church to use during instruction."

There were various scenes of Jesus and other events of the church that were done by non LDS artists.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2015 06:42PM by messygoop.

Those pictures are propaganda. They have influenced several generations of LDS to believe a lie. The church knows how powerful a graphical representation can be. They alluded to that fact when they released the photo of the "seer stone". They have known all along what an evil mind game they were playing with us.

Can you imagine being a missionary and trying to sell the gospel, while showing a picture of JS looking into his hat?

It would not fly in this day and age. Period. It would be ridiculed, and justly so.

That is the long and short of it. Reasonable people won't buy it. And the church knows it. Even your TBM relatives know this, but won't say it.

It will be interesting to see how the missionary discussions address this change, if at all.

The church has airbrushed angel wings out of pictures done by non-Mormons, including the widely-used one of the Second Coming which was done, I think, by a Seventh-Day Adventist. It also covered the bare shoulders of an angel at the tomb at the Resurrection. Somebody once posted before and after pics of that one, and the original had shoulders showing, IIRC.

It is pure baloney to say that they didn't also love the pics of Joseph looking at the plates and using those intentionally. They set artists up to do the pics the way they did them. If an artist had done a rock in a hat it never would have been published.

The internet knows so much:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/60872-stone-box/page-16

Thank RFM to get TSCC to relate a more truthful history!

> The one common thread that runs through all of this is that the leadership will say whatever and do whatever is necessary to achieve two goals: protect the institutional church and protect the leadership's position of absolute power in it. Anything and everything can be tossed out if it furthers those goals. Any lie or half truth can be justified if it furthers those goals.

These words in this thread are poignant. I have been shocked, sickened and soured by the actions of the church....think of the people who have needlessly lost their lives by church actions and think of the people who have lost their hearts for the same reason.

And, all in all, does the church give a damn? I shout a very loud and big HELL NO! They do not care if they lie, half-lie, steal, injure, kill, create the scenario where someone feels he has no recourse but to end his life, embarrass, frustrate, disappoint, confuse, con, and/or condemn. And those descriptions are only the tip of the iceberg.

How does the leadership sleep at night?

Oh, silly me, they have chosen their consciences for power, fame and wealth., now haven't they?....so they snore and snore and sleep just fine.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2015 02:01AM by presleynfactsrock.